0120081729
08-07-2008
Frank R. Hayes, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Frank R. Hayes,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081729
Agency No. 1F-901-0195-07
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision dated February 8, 2008, finding that it was in compliance with
the terms of the November 21, 2007 settlement agreement into which the
parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.402; .405; & .504(b).
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
The issue of locker has been resolved.
Due to management not being authorized to make decisions on bid issue,
they agree to meet at a later date. Management will research issue and
bring parties authorized to make decisions on bid issues to meeting with
[complainant's representatives] on 12-19-07 to officially resolve issue
in maintenance conference room. If date changes all parties will be
notified with new date.
Once resolved, all grievances at all steps and levels and EEOs will
be dropped pertaining to issues in this mediation including: EEO #
IF-901-0195-07 and 4F-900-0113-06 Grievance # MGZ 107-0370-05.
[Complainant] will be allowed to work at main office station with
reporting time 10:00a.m. - 6:30 p.m. with Saturday and Sunday off
temporarily. Effective 11-24-07 until issue is resolved.
By EEO Request for Counseling dated January 11, 2008, complainant
alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and
requested that the agency specifically implement its terms. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency illegally changed his bid assignment
from the agency's main office station.
In its February 8, 2008 final decision, the agency concluded that it
did not breach the November 21 settlement agreement. Specifically,
the agency stated that, on or about January 9, 2008, a Maintenance
Operations Manager (S1) met with complainant and his representative
regarding his bid assignment. The agency stated that S1 indicated that
the agency has authority to reconfigure its operations and the instant
reconfiguration dissolved some bid assignments, including complainant's
assignment at the main office station. The agency stated that it offered
complainant an alternate position but he declined its offer. Further,
the agency stated that complainant agreed to allow a management official
with appropriate authority to research and resolve the issue and such
occurred in the meeting with S1. The agency stated that the matter is
resolved so complainant needs to resume his position as an unassigned
maintenance employee at the Los Angeles General Mail facility.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at
any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties.
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a
contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary rules of
contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further
held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard
to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally
relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states
that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument
without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery
Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find that consideration or lack thereof is
an issue. The adequacy or fairness of consideration in an agreement
usually is not at issue, so long as the parties incurred some legal
detriment. When a party incurs no legal detriment, the settlement
agreement lacks consideration, and is void. See Terracina v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910888 (Mar. 11,
1992). To incur a legal detriment, the parties must commit themselves
to do something they were not already obligated to do. See Morita
v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05960450 (December
12, 1997). In the instant matter, the agency agreed to research the
dissolution of complainant's bid position and send a management official
with appropriate authority to meet with complainant to "officially resolve
[the] issue." It allowed complainant to remain at the main office station
until it resolved the issue. In exchange, complainant agreed to withdraw
all grievances and EEO matters pertaining to the complaint at issue.
Essentially, in the agreed-upon meeting, the management official informed
complainant that the agency had authority to reconfigure its operations
and abolish his position if necessary. The agency stated that the
matter is resolved based on S1's notice to complainant. Based on the
totality of the circumstances, the Commission is not persuaded that
the agency incurred a legal detriment. The agency's actions did not
confer any benefit to complainant to which he was not already entitled.
Accordingly, we VACATE the agency's decision and REMAND the complaint
for reinstatement from the point processing ceased, consistent with this
decision and the Order below.
ORDER (E0408)
The agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with
29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant
that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue
to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify
complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)
calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter
is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision
within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0408)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the
policies, practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0408)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant
in the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0408)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 7, 2008
__________________
Date
2
0120081729
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120081729